Closed rjyounes closed 4 months ago
Not sure if this is tongue in cheek, but I guess you're right, animals can have languages, and not just mammals. No, I don't think we want to broaden artifact to mean mammal made or animal made. However, perhaps it should include computer-made objects. I don't think in our current world we can infer from the fact that a computer is human-made, and X is computer-made, that X is human-made.
Closing this issue due to the valid objection about animal languages.
Until there are language tags for non-human languages, I think it's safe to treat "Language" as synonymous with "human language." Gist is already English-centric; keeping it anthropocentric should be acceptable.
But we wouldn't want to expand "Artifact" to include creations of non-human agents, since that goes against the common usage of the word. Instead, Artifact could be a sub-class of BiogenicThing, which would encompass the products of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. TechogenicThing could cover the products of computers, robots, etc. Finally we could have a superclass for BiogenicThing and Technogenic thing. But let's wait until we have some client use cases.
Until there are language tags for non-human languages, I think it's safe to treat "Language" as synonymous with "human language." Gist is already English-centric; keeping it anthropocentric should be acceptable.
The current gist definition of Language already includes computer languages.
The current gist definition of Language already includes computer languages.
For now, at least, those are still artifacts.
Maybe whales have a language? Broaden Artifact definition to be 'mammal-made'?